City of Hartford v. Parsons
| Decision Date | 30 July 1913 |
| Parties | CITY OF HARTFORD v. PARSONS. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Hartford; Herbert S. Bullard, Judge.
Action by City of Hartford against Herbert C. Parsons. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The city ordinances of Hartford forbid the production of theatrical performances without a license, revocable by the mayor at any time, and further provide that the owner or manager of any theater shall he required to have in attendance at every public performance a member of the city police force or fire department charged with the supervision of the fire escapes and exits. The defendant had for a long time employed one Duffy, a supernumerary policeman to be in attendance at his theater and had paid him for his services. About June 1, 1910, Duffy resigned from the police force and became a deputy sheriff and continued to be employed as before by the defendant, although no longer a policeman. A fireman was especially assigned for attendance at the defendant's theater, and the city rendered a bill to the defendant for $97.50, being the amount of the fireman's pay for the number of days he was at the defendant's theater; and, on the defendant's refusal to pay, this action on the common counts was commenced.
Edward L. Steele and Alvan Waldo Hyde, both of Hartford, for appellant.
Edward M. Day, of Hartford, for appellee.
BEACH, J. (after stating the facts as above). The trial court refused to find that the defendant requested the mayor of the city to have a fireman assigned for duty at his theater; and the plaintiff's motion to correct the finding in that regard is denied. The evidence as certified fully justifies the finding of the trial court that the defendant refused to have a policeman or fireman in attendance at his theater, until he was informed by the mayor that he must do so, and that the mayor would revoke his license unless the defendant permitted a policeman or fireman to be in attendance according to the ordinance. Thereupon, at a conference between defendant's counsel and the mayor, it was agreed that the chief of the fire department should assign a fireman to defendant's theater. There is no proof or finding that the defendant voluntarily requested that a fireman should be assigned to his theater, much less that he expressly or tacitly agreed to pay the fireman's wages.
The next question is whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Neil v. Providence Amusement Co.
...for the public welfare. Tannenbaum v. Rehm, 152 Ala. 494, 44 South. 532, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 700, 120 Am. St. Rep. 52; Hartford v. Parsons, 87 Conn. 412, 87 Atl. 736, Ann. Cas. 1916A, The respondent contends that said section, in requiring that it, as the operator of a theater in the city o......
-
Hudson Circle Servicenter, Inc. v. Town of Kearny
...(dance halls), or in the alternative, to permit such services to be furnished by local police or fire departments. City of Hartford v. Parsons, 87 Conn. 412, 87 A. 736, Ann.Cas.1916A, 1182 (Sup.Ct. of Err.1913) (theaters and opera houses); Cf. O'Neil v. Providence Amusement Co., supra. Many......
-
Mathurin v. City of Putnam
...of a special officer detailed to assist private persons in the management of their businesses on several occasions. In City of Hartford v. Parsons, 87 Conn. 412, 87 A. 736, Ann.Cas.1916A, 1182, an action brought by the plaintiff to recover the cost of a fireman's services, we stated, 87 Con......
-
Connecticut Theatrical Corp. v. City of New Britain
...in the state police exclusive jurisdiction to regulate moving picture theaters with respect to all personal hazards. City of Hartford v. Parsons, 87 Conn. 412, 87 A. 736, involved an ordinance of the city of Hartford which required the owner or manager of any theater to have in attendance a......